PDA

View Full Version : What came first, the PC or the campaign?



Talakeal
2012-07-09, 04:58 PM
So, looking to put all of my bad gaming behind me and start out for greener pastures in the future, and I am trying to figure out ways to get my PCs on board and invested in the story.

I think I may have been doing it backwards all these years.

In the past I always had a vague outline for the overarching theme of the game first. For example something like "government operatives under cover in enemy territory", "Cowboys exploring an untamed wilderness," or "Knights and their advisors waging war against an evil necromancers army".

I would have a rough idea of who the major players where, specific NPCs and factions, their overall motivations, and how their plans would precede without PC interference, as well as a few specific scenes and adventures.

Then I would tell the characters the theme and then let the players make characters. I would usually give them basic guidelines like "Core races only, no tier 1 classes, no evil characters, everyone has to have a motivation to work with your fellow party members and NPC quest giver X".

Then I would take the players and whatever back story they come up with (usually next to none) and try and fit them in with the campaign. I would give each NPC a personal connection to one or more NPCs, and a back ground and possible destiny that fit with the campaign building on what they gave me to work with.


Now, the impression I took away from the last few threads is that I should be having the players make their PCs first, ask them what type of game they want to play and then make a campaign around that.

However, I come across the following problems:

1: PCs don't like to make a backstory. Either they aren't creative enough, they just don't have motivation, or they are the type of player who actively hates that stupid fluff stuff and wants to get to the killing.

2: They never agree. PCs created without restrictions will, both mechanically and socially, not mesh even slightly. If I have four PCs they will all be drastically different races, classes, power levels, back stories, motivations, and alignment. They would never work together, let alone fit together in a campaign. If I locked them in a room and told them to come up with a cohesive group I imagine they would just fight for a few hours and then quit the game.

3: If I give the PCs buy in to create the story how can I get them to agree? Totally different players have totally different goals. One guy wants to be a paladin defending the realm from evil, the other one wants to play a sociopathic necromancer who wants to kill everyone he sees and create an unstoppable army of undead. One guy wants to work for the local crime boss, the other wants to be an emissary of the high heavens fighting in the blood war.
Furthermore, the players don't know the campaign world as well as I do, especially if I am running a home-brew world or system. Also, if they already have an idea of how the campaign will go in the long run won't that ruin the surprise and investment when it happens?

4: The last problem is personal. If I don't have inspiration for the game, how do I come up with all the ideas I need? Inspiration and motivation are hard to come by, and the DM needs to put a lot more time, effort, and creativity into creating the campaign than a PC does. If I put the ball in the PCs hands how do I do all this when they hand it back to me?

Macbubble
2012-07-09, 05:36 PM
I would advise you to refer to the creator of the following thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247997, in which all the players have a very interesting background, which is connected to the setting. In addition they been playing it for more then 15 years so you know its works.

Knaight
2012-07-09, 06:13 PM
I'd note a few things. The first is that crafting the PCs around the campaign works, as does crafting the campaign around the PCs. What tends not to work though, is having a campaign, having a bunch of PCs created with no reference to that campaign, and trying to stick them together. As such, there are some relatively easy solutions. If you are planning on a game about a group of cowboys* on a frontier settling the wilderness you don't give the restrictions "Core races only, no tier 1 classes, no evil characters, everyone has to have a motivation to work with their fellow party members and quest giver X." You give something along the lines of "Make a character who is a cowboy type character who works at settling a frontier". The theme should be known, the players should all have agreed to it (which might involve going through a lot of rejected themes first), and everyone should be working towards it.

In short: Tell your players the theme of the campaign, and see that they make characters to fit that theme. Alternately, build the campaign around the PCs.

*I assume this refers less to cowboys as they were and more to the mythologized, romanticized view where cattle are rarely involved and they seem to be wandering warriors above anything else.

Talakeal
2012-07-09, 06:30 PM
I'd note a few things. The first is that crafting the PCs around the campaign works, as does crafting the campaign around the PCs. What tends not to work though, is having a campaign, having a bunch of PCs created with no reference to that campaign, and trying to stick them together. As such, there are some relatively easy solutions. If you are planning on a game about a group of cowboys* on a frontier settling the wilderness you don't give the restrictions "Core races only, no tier 1 classes, no evil characters, everyone has to have a motivation to work with their fellow party members and quest giver X." You give something along the lines of "Make a character who is a cowboy type character who works at settling a frontier". The theme should be known, the players should all have agreed to it (which might involve going through a lot of rejected themes first), and everyone should be working towards it.

In short: Tell your players the theme of the campaign, and see that they make characters to fit that theme. Alternately, build the campaign around the PCs.

*I assume this refers less to cowboys as they were and more to the mythologized, romanticized view where cattle are rarely involved and they seem to be wandering warriors above anything else.

I meant cowboys as the archetypical protaganist of the western genre, just an example I plucked out of the air.

So, if you don't lay down restrictions, what happens when there is a conflict in player creativity? If one or more people are LG monks and others CE wizards how does the game work from either a mechanical or a storyline perspective?

Likewise, you need a common setting for the game. What if some players, for whatever reason, don't fit in the setting, for example don't speak the local language, have no reason to be in that part of the world, or have a vendetta against the local "authority?"

I have had a lot of problem players in the past, so maybe it is just me, but I have never been in a group where everyone was on the same page without some major pushing from the GM. Also, there is always atleast one borderline sociopath who makes "CN" characters who steal from the party and friendly NPCs, don't listen to anyone, and attack anyone who dares to give them orders or not give them everything they demand and hides behind the "I was only playing my character" excuse.

Knaight
2012-07-09, 06:39 PM
I meant cowboys as the archetypical protaganist of the western genre, just an example I plucked out of the air.
Really, the same principle applies either way, though cowboys is one of those terms that everyone needs to be on the same page with, so you don't get a gunslinger on a horse from most of your players and one underpaid, underfed youth moving a bunch of cattle around.


So, if you don't lay down restrictions, what happens when there is a conflict in player creativity? If one or more people are LG monks and others CE wizards how does the game work from either a mechanical or a storyline perspective?
From a storyline perspective, LG monks and CE wizards can be connected, though it is probably going to be difficult. How it has to be done really comes down to the specific characters. With that said, there are going to need to be some restrictions - at the very least, agreement on genre and system are necessary, though settings can be improvised.


Likewise, you need a common setting for the game. What if some players, for whatever reason, don't fit in the setting, for example don't speak the local language, have no reason to be in that part of the world, or have a vendetta against the local "authority?"
If you are building around the PCs, the details regarding local language, local authority, so on and so forth aren't particular, as you can just stick them wherever. If the PCs are being built within an agreed upon setting, then making sure that they fit includes having the language and reason work, though there are exceptions to the first regarding fish out of water stories. As for a vendetta, that really depends on the general framework of the campaign, for some it would be recommended against, for others it is practically mandatory.


I have had a lot of problem players in the past, so maybe it is just me, but I have never been in a group where everyone was on the same page without some major pushing from the GM.
The thing about getting everyone on the same page is that you often have to reject a lot of pages. Ideas are going to get vetoed, often everyone involved will veto several, but eventually everyone can get on the same page, and once they are on the same page you are less likely to have problems.

Jay R
2012-07-09, 07:45 PM
You're dealing with several different issues. Let's pull them apart. First, I'll talk about this one:


1: PCs don't like to make a backstory. Either they aren't creative enough, they just don't have motivation, or they are the type of player who actively hates that stupid fluff stuff and wants to get to the killing.

My experience is that some players want lots of backstory; some want little; some want none. So let them have it.

We have one player who just wants to kill the bad guys. So I write his backstory, which is not much more than why he wants to kill the people who are the bad guys in this scenario. This gives him what he wants, gives me the hook I need, and doesn't get in the ways of somebody else's several pages of backstory.

I'll be back to discuss other issues later.

Fatebreaker
2012-07-09, 09:04 PM
However, I come across the following problems:

1: PCs don't like to make a backstory. Either they aren't creative enough, they just don't have motivation, or they are the type of player who actively hates that stupid fluff stuff and wants to get to the killing.

You don't need a lot of backstory. I believe one of the great misconceptions of roleplaying is that "backstory" means some thirty-plus page document, complete with genealogy and favorite flavor of toothpaste. Backstory can be as simple as, "I'm playing a superstitious pirate who adventures because he's bored."

Of course, that's where you come in. What kind of superstitions? What makes him un-bored? What does he do when he's bored for too long? Why and how did he become a pirate, specifically? What, if any, are his larger goals? Is there anyone important, friend or foe, in his life? If so, whom? If not, why? Ask questions. You'll get some answers that are helpful, and some that aren't. You don't need an in-depth novel, just an idea of who and what the character is.

I try to do character creation as a group. That way, folks get to bounce ideas off one another. It's a lot of fun that way. This also ties into...


2: They never agree. PCs created without restrictions will, both mechanically and socially, not mesh even slightly. If I have four PCs they will all be drastically different races, classes, power levels, back stories, motivations, and alignment. They would never work together, let alone fit together in a campaign. If I locked them in a room and told them to come up with a cohesive group I imagine they would just fight for a few hours and then quit the game.

Why don't your players agree? If they can't or won't agree, maybe that's a sign that they shouldn't play together.

Alternatively, are they creating character separately or as a group? As I mentioned above, I always get the best results when players work as a group to create the party. Little ideas or themes start to pop up across the group, and pretty soon there's a chain of connections between characters which ties them together.

But again, if they can't or won't, play with other people. The players should want to play together.


3: If I give the PCs buy in to create the story how can I get them to agree? Totally different players have totally different goals. One guy wants to be a paladin defending the realm from evil, the other one wants to play a sociopathic necromancer who wants to kill everyone he sees and create an unstoppable army of undead. One guy wants to work for the local crime boss, the other wants to be an emissary of the high heavens fighting in the blood war.

This, and part of #2, really becomes a question of being selective about your players. If there is no common ground between your players, and no desire to find, make, or contrive a common ground, then they should probably not be playing together.

But, you could always make that the focus of the game. Find something they all hate. Make that the enemy. Let them sort out their in-character conflicts themselves. Remind them that, however much they hate each other, they really hate this other guy.

And when they inevitably kill each other, wrap it all up with an epilogue about how they let their mutual enemy win because they just couldn't understand that friendship is magic. Then do another campaign set after the first one, and give them a chance to work together to undo the tragedies of the last one. Repeat this until learning occurs.


Furthermore, the players don't know the campaign world as well as I do, especially if I am running a home-brew world or system. Also, if they already have an idea of how the campaign will go in the long run won't that ruin the surprise and investment when it happens?

The players don't have to know the game world as well as you do or where it will go. If one guy likes undead, make undead a thing that's relevant. If another likes heaven vs. hell, make that relevant, too. Start asking how both of those could tie together. I presume your world is big enough to include a lot of ideas. If not, well, it's your world. Make it bigger.


4: The last problem is personal. If I don't have inspiration for the game, how do I come up with all the ideas I need? Inspiration and motivation are hard to come by, and the DM needs to put a lot more time, effort, and creativity into creating the campaign than a PC does. If I put the ball in the PCs hands how do I do all this when they hand it back to me?

The sneaky bit is that, if done properly, the players give you all the inspiration and motivation you need. When you talk to them during character creation, get some ideas for what they like, then go through that list and see what you like. Make those things the things that will happen.

--

The real concern, though, is that if you're still playing with disruptive, uncooperative, unresponsive players, nothing you do will matter. There is no piece of advice, no narrative hook, no elegant mechanic which will save you from people who fundamentally have no interest in working together to create a fun environment in which to play a game.

If the players don't know how to work together, that's one thing. A sad thing, but we all have to learn somehow, right? So get feedback from everyone, ask questions, and find common ground between their answers.

If the players won't work together, don't even bother. Find new players.

Kadzar
2012-07-09, 11:10 PM
I have had a lot of problem players in the past, so maybe it is just me, but I have never been in a group where everyone was on the same page without some major pushing from the GM. Also, there is always atleast one borderline sociopath who makes "CN" characters who steal from the party and friendly NPCs, don't listen to anyone, and attack anyone who dares to give them orders or not give them everything they demand and hides behind the "I was only playing my character" excuse. When they make that excuse, that's when you need to tell them they either need to make the character work out or make a new character. If they can't make it work, have the natural consequence of their actions befall them (but only for the character that causes problems; no need to punish the other players). Alternatively, you can make the character an NPC. Then, if their next character is troublesome, you can have their old character come back and act like it's old jerky self, and they can't argue with it, because that's just how that character is. :P

Yora
2012-07-10, 03:35 AM
Now, the impression I took away from the last few threads is that I should be having the players make their PCs first, ask them what type of game they want to play and then make a campaign around that.
I think this is the very last thing one should do for a story-centered campaign. May work for dungeon crawls without plot, but you can't make a story with that.

Driderman
2012-07-10, 04:19 AM
So, looking to put all of my bad gaming behind me and start out for greener pastures in the future, and I am trying to figure out ways to get my PCs on board and invested in the story.

I think I may have been doing it backwards all these years.

In the past I always had a vague outline for the overarching theme of the game first. For example something like "government operatives under cover in enemy territory", "Cowboys exploring an untamed wilderness," or "Knights and their advisors waging war against an evil necromancers army".

I would have a rough idea of who the major players where, specific NPCs and factions, their overall motivations, and how their plans would precede without PC interference, as well as a few specific scenes and adventures.

Then I would tell the characters the theme and then let the players make characters. I would usually give them basic guidelines like "Core races only, no tier 1 classes, no evil characters, everyone has to have a motivation to work with your fellow party members and NPC quest giver X".

Then I would take the players and whatever back story they come up with (usually next to none) and try and fit them in with the campaign. I would give each NPC a personal connection to one or more NPCs, and a back ground and possible destiny that fit with the campaign building on what they gave me to work with.


Now, the impression I took away from the last few threads is that I should be having the players make their PCs first, ask them what type of game they want to play and then make a campaign around that.

However, I come across the following problems:

1: PCs don't like to make a backstory. Either they aren't creative enough, they just don't have motivation, or they are the type of player who actively hates that stupid fluff stuff and wants to get to the killing.

2: They never agree. PCs created without restrictions will, both mechanically and socially, not mesh even slightly. If I have four PCs they will all be drastically different races, classes, power levels, back stories, motivations, and alignment. They would never work together, let alone fit together in a campaign. If I locked them in a room and told them to come up with a cohesive group I imagine they would just fight for a few hours and then quit the game.

3: If I give the PCs buy in to create the story how can I get them to agree? Totally different players have totally different goals. One guy wants to be a paladin defending the realm from evil, the other one wants to play a sociopathic necromancer who wants to kill everyone he sees and create an unstoppable army of undead. One guy wants to work for the local crime boss, the other wants to be an emissary of the high heavens fighting in the blood war.
Furthermore, the players don't know the campaign world as well as I do, especially if I am running a home-brew world or system. Also, if they already have an idea of how the campaign will go in the long run won't that ruin the surprise and investment when it happens?

4: The last problem is personal. If I don't have inspiration for the game, how do I come up with all the ideas I need? Inspiration and motivation are hard to come by, and the DM needs to put a lot more time, effort, and creativity into creating the campaign than a PC does. If I put the ball in the PCs hands how do I do all this when they hand it back to me?

The people I play with are generally very good at cooperatively building characters that mesh well and work well within the framework given by the GM. I find that the trick is to sit down together and tell the players what kind of story you want to tell and then you come up with character concepts together. Basically, your first session (maybe even first two) is character creation where the players work together on building a cohesive group that fits the premise of the campaign.
Of course, this works best if the players in question aren't immature manchildren :smallwink:

Saph
2012-07-10, 04:20 AM
So, looking to put all of my bad gaming behind me and start out for greener pastures in the future, and I am trying to figure out ways to get my PCs on board and invested in the story . . .

Now, the impression I took away from the last few threads is that I should be having the players make their PCs first, ask them what type of game they want to play and then make a campaign around that.

I've run PC-centric campaigns where the adventure is whatever the PCs decide to do. They can be a lot of fun, but they absolutely require three things:

The characters have to have genuine personalities and goals.
The players have to be willing to co-operate with each other and make compromises to work as a team.
The players have to trust the DM and vice versa.
From what I've read of your threads so far, it doesn't sound like any of these is remotely likely to happen. Is the problem player you wrote about still around? If he is, I suspect any attempt to create a PC-centred campaign is going to be a disaster.

I mean, when you say things like this:


1: PCs don't like to make a backstory.

2: They never agree. They would never work together, let alone fit together in a campaign.

. . . then it's a bad, bad sign for any kind of PC-centric game.

I think I know what sort of campaign would work best for your group, but I doubt it's what you'd want to run. :)

Man on Fire
2012-07-10, 05:40 AM
So, looking to put all of my bad gaming behind me and start out for greener pastures in the future, and I am trying to figure out ways to get my PCs on board and invested in the story.

And by that I hope you mean you parted with your players.

More on topis - 4chan to the rescure (http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/17679146/).

tl;dr version: Instead of asking players for backstory ask every one of them to write down 3 goals - small, medium and large - and 3 beliefs of their characters, then build adventures around advancing these goals and events both supporting and questioning those beliefs.

Jay R
2012-07-10, 09:07 AM
2: They never agree. PCs created without restrictions will, both mechanically and socially, not mesh even slightly. If I have four PCs they will all be drastically different races, classes, power levels, back stories, motivations, and alignment. They would never work together, let alone fit together in a campaign. If I locked them in a room and told them to come up with a cohesive group I imagine they would just fight for a few hours and then quit the game.

Make them care about this as part of character design. "OK, you need to start designing your characters now, so start coordinating with each other. By the time the game starts, I want a reason or set of reasons you've all agreed on for why these characters are traveling together."

That's a minimum requirement for a party to exist. In the games you used to run, the DM would force this on them. But if you are giving them free reign to create their characters, then this part is included. The Spider-Man principle generalizes: With character-creation power comes character-creation responsibility.

If they won't do this, then they aren't ready to take an active part in deciding what kinds of things the party should do or what kind of world there should be. Go back to giving them the structure.

Finally, if you are actually starting the game, they can't be different power levels. There's not that much difference between first-levels.

If you're "starting" them above first level, then I have no advice for you, except that you're leaving out the part of the game that provides the real backstory for high-level characters.

Totally Guy
2012-07-10, 09:42 AM
Instead of asking players for backstory ask every one of them to write down 3 goals - small, medium and large - and 3 beliefs of their characters, then build adventures around advancing these goals and events both supporting and questioning those beliefs.

I did this process on Saturday night for a con game of Burning Wheel. I provided a big picture: You are orcs in a tolkienesque fantasy society. And a situation: A mystic named Purpleshard has taken Warlord Drodush's pet human, and Drodush wants you to get his pet back and kill Purpleshard and he never forgives failure.

Then I asked for 1 statement about the situation, 1 about another member of the team and 1 that was a personal philosophy.

But that's the standard way BW is set up to get get everyone on the same page at the start. So I didn't do anything radical in itself. I made a conscious effort to challenge those beliefs in play as they would dramatic moments that the players cared about enough to write down.

Jay R
2012-07-10, 11:14 AM
3: If I give the PCs buy in to create the story how can I get them to agree?

Give them buy-in if and only if they can agree. Just as a DM must be concerned with every player's goals, not just her own, a player with the right to help create the story must be concerned with every other player's goals.

That's the minimum level of maturity needed to help create the story for them all.


Furthermore, the players don't know the campaign world as well as I do, especially if I am running a home-brew world or system. Also, if they already have an idea of how the campaign will go in the long run won't that ruin the surprise and investment when it happens

If they are really helping create it, then neither you nor they know anything about it until the cooperative phase begins. If one of them wants to play the last orc in the world, out to get revenge on the genocidal dwarves, then you can't have a thriving orc kingdom (unless it's hidden to be revealed many years later). Also, there needs to be a backstory of a genocidal war of dwarves vs. orcs.


4: The last problem is personal. If I don't have inspiration for the game, how do I come up with all the ideas I need? Inspiration and motivation are hard to come by, and the DM needs to put a lot more time, effort, and creativity into creating the campaign than a PC does. If I put the ball in the PCs hands how do I do all this when they hand it back to me?

If their ideas don't provide an inspiration that you can run with, then the experiment is already half-failed. If one PC wants revenge on the dwarves, another wants to carve a fiefdom out of the wilderness, and a third hopes to become the most learned mage in the world, you should have all the inspiration you need.

You can either design campaigns containing their goals, or you can give up and put 'em back on the railroad.

Talakeal
2012-07-10, 04:11 PM
I have a question; in what part of the forum would it be appropriate for me to post an in depth summary of my current campaign so I can get feedback on what I did right / wrong and advice on where I should go in the future?

Man on Fire
2012-07-10, 04:22 PM
This one, eventually, if you want to dwell in mechanics, one of D&D specific.

Jay R
2012-07-10, 04:34 PM
I've written the following handout for my next 2E game:

Almost every role-playing game I’ve seen has started with the DM creating a world, and usually a situation, and telling the players to design characters to fit into that situation. The next D&D game I run will be done the other way. All starting players will tell me what kind of characters they want to play, and what backgrounds, points of view, and goals they have. Then I’ll design a world that allows for it.

This is not going to happen for a long time. I’m currently involved in a fun, well-developed game that could last for years. But designing the world around what the players want to do will take time – I’m thinking at least two years – and so I need to get the player desires early.

We aren’t rolling characters yet. If we ever get to this game, we’ll do that then, and I guarantee you will have the minimum stats necessary to play the character.

So what would you like to play, if you had your own choice? If you want to be a human raised by elves, fine – I’ll find a way. If you want to be the last dwarf left after the century-long Goblin Wars, I’ll establish a century-long Goblin War that wiped out the rest of the dwarves.

To the extent possible, this world’s history will be designed to allow what the players want, not merely what the DM wants. This does not mean that I won’t invent lots of stuff that has nothing to do with you; merely that anything needed for you to play your character will be there.

Of course, there are some limitations. The biggest one is this – you are starting as a first level character. When I say you can choose your own background, that doesn’t mean you can decide your character is the captain of an elite war unit. You can decide your goal is to someday organize and train an elite war unit. But you cannot claim experience. You are starting on your adventures and learning curve.

Your background can include one or two formative incidents. These are intended to provide focus, motivation and persona, not extra experience or abilities. Perhaps your village was over-run by ogres, or your sister was saved by a knight, or you heard an incredible bard as a youngster, and this affected what you want to become. You can use this to establish something your character should have but no longer does – he was waylaid on the road, and now some bandit has your great-grandfather’s sword, perhaps.

You can have a mentor. You can be a knight’s new squire, a wizard’s apprentice, or a priest’s acolyte. Creating such a character will be a joint venture, but this isn’t somebody who will adventure with you, and it isn’t somebody you run. It’s an NPC that I run, in order to put you in interesting and dangerous situations.

You can be part of a group. Maybe you just joined that military unit, but if so, it isn’t an elite unit yet, and you’re the new recruit who cleans out the latrines. Try not to invent a background that prevents you from having individual adventures. The group you’re part of isn’t coming with you on your adventures.

You can invent almost any background, but it won’t give you any extra power, ability, or influence. If you want to be the son of a king, fine, but you are the son of a deposed king. Maybe your goal is to win the kingdom back. It’s possible, but you won’t succeed until you have enough experience to establish yourself as a king. And it won’t be automatic -- the kingship will not automatically belong to the old king’s son. There are no old retainers, immediate or potential, that will automatically follow you. (Maybe you can convince me to allow some potential retainers that will follow you if you can find them, but they will be no easier to come by than any other followers.)

Don’t try to use this to get more power or abilities or influence. Use it to create the kind of fun background you want to play.

There will be several players, and the backgrounds and goals have to mesh. Don’t worry about that. Unless they are in absolute conflict, I will make them mesh. (That’s one reason I will need a long time.) If one of you wants revenge on the goblins and another wants to find the fabled lost Head of Vecna, then maybe the goblins have it, or possibly they are defending a ruined castle that contains a useful clue. Given enough detail on your characters, I can invent a full world that will keep them busy doing what they want to do for a long, long time.

Ideally, I want this game to be based on what you want to do. I prefer good / neutral players, but if enough of you want to play evil ones, that’s what we’ll do. If all but one want to play a good party, however, that one is out of luck (unless he’s prepared to get along with a good party for years).

If you have no particular desire, that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “I just want to be a human fighter looking for adventure.” But this is your chance to finally play the character idea that you could never make fit any game you’ve been in before.

Talakeal
2012-07-10, 05:06 PM
You actually have a lot more restrictions than I do. Is this intentional? Do players think better when you give them structure and limitations to work within?

Knaight
2012-07-10, 05:36 PM
I think this is the very last thing one should do for a story-centered campaign. May work for dungeon crawls without plot, but you can't make a story with that.

You can make a story centered campaign just fine, you just need to figure out a good way to connect all of them and work through their shared motivations.

Jay R
2012-07-10, 06:04 PM
You actually have a lot more restrictions than I do. Is this intentional? Do players think better when you give them structure and limitations to work within?

All my limitations boil down to:

1. You all have to be able to work together.
2. You are first level starting characters.
3. No, really, I mean it. First level. No extra experience, no extra powers.

A couple of my players need to be reminded regularly that clever ways to imply they have more power or influence than the rules allow won't be allowed to work.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-10, 06:23 PM
All my limitations boil down to:

1. You all have to be able to work together.
2. You are first level starting characters.
3. No, really, I mean it. First level. No extra experience, no extra powers.

A couple of my players need to be reminded regularly that clever ways to imply they have more power or influence than the rules allow won't be allowed to work.

Judging by Talakeal's previous threads, putting these restrictions in play will result in them trying to burn down his house in RL.

Tengu_temp
2012-07-10, 09:48 PM
Pretty much all my games start with the campaign concept first, and the PCs make characters that fit the game. Never seemed to bother anyone. It also tends to lead to better games overall, in my experience, because the characters have something specific to them this way. They're not generic.



Almost every role-playing game I’ve seen has started with the DM creating a world, and usually a situation, and telling the players to design characters to fit into that situation. The next D&D game I run will be done the other way. All starting players will tell me what kind of characters they want to play, and what backgrounds, points of view, and goals they have. Then I’ll design a world that allows for it.

This is not going to happen for a long time. I’m currently involved in a fun, well-developed game that could last for years. But designing the world around what the players want to do will take time – I’m thinking at least two years – and so I need to get the player desires early.


Who'd wait 2 years for a game? And who'd be willing to stay committed to one character concept for that long before the game starts? I'm pretty sure most people would change their concepts several times over during that time, if not more.

And why develop a setting over such a long period of time if it's just a single game? Making a setting for such a situation is completely different from making a setting that will be used in multiple games by multiple people. You don't need to create every single detail from the get-go, most of them will never come up in the campaign anyway. Flesh out things as they become relevant to the game - that way you can create a good setting in weeks or even days, not years.

Jay R
2012-07-11, 10:38 AM
Pretty much all my games start with the campaign concept first, and the PCs make characters that fit the game. Never seemed to bother anyone.

Yes, of course. Mine too. This is an experiment; I'm trying something new.


It also tends to lead to better games overall, in my experience, because the characters have something specific to them this way. They're not generic..

How can you have any experience to decide which is better until you've tried it both ways?

I haven't done it either. I have no idea how it well it would work. That's kind of the point of an experiment.


Who'd wait 2 years for a game?

Nobody's waiting. We're all actively involved in another game. I'm just doing prep work well in advance.


And who'd be willing to stay committed to one character concept for that long before the game starts? I'm pretty sure most people would change their concepts several times over during that time, if not more.

The whole point is to let somebody play a character idea that they've had for years that never fit any DM's scenario. Ideally, it's for an idea the player has had for decades. I've had ideas for three different characters that I've never gotten to play.

(Also, the youngest gamer in the group is 42. Waiting two years doesn't seem that horrible any more.)


And why develop a setting over such a long period of time if it's just a single game? Making a setting for such a situation is completely different from making a setting that will be used in multiple games by multiple people. You don't need to create every single detail from the get-go, most of them will never come up in the campaign anyway. Flesh out things as they become relevant to the game - that way you can create a good setting in weeks or even days, not years.

If one player wants to be the last goblin after a genocidal war, and another wants to pursue the legends of the mystic Ancient One high in the eastern mountains, and another wants to be the lost heir to a usurped throne, and the last one wants a character who was raised by apes in the jungle, then there's a fair amount of background needed to fit all the history and geography together reasonably seamlessly.

Finally, it's not 2 years because I'm slow; it's two years because I won't stop playing while I'm getting it started. I'm involved in another game. I won't be designing full-time. My best worlds have started with a year or more of just occasionally thinking of ideas.

Tengu_temp
2012-07-11, 11:43 AM
How can you have any experience to decide which is better until you've tried it both ways?

Because I played in games where the PCs are built in vacuum before. They were much less interesting.

In general, if I speak against a playstyle in my post, it's because I checked it out before, and I didn't find it as fun as my preferred one.


The whole point is to let somebody play a character idea that they've had for years that never fit any DM's scenario. Ideally, it's for an idea the player has had for decades. I've had ideas for three different characters that I've never gotten to play.

I see what you mean, but I can't say I ever felt like that. I made a lot of characters I never got to play, but I don't feel particularily attached to any of them or feel bad that I didn't get to play them. I form attachment to my characters by playing them. If you told me to give you a character concept now and then we started playing a game after 2 years, I'd most likely want to play a different character.

Jay R
2012-07-11, 12:21 PM
Because I played in games where the PCs are built in vacuum before. They were much less interesting.

Of course, the description "designed in a vacuum" leaves out 99% of what I'm talking about.These characters aren't designed in a vacuum. They and their background are designed together by the player, and the backgrounds are then woven into a consistent world by the DM. These aren't characters with no background or connection to the world. These will be characters as tied to the world as any other. It's just that the world is designed around their backgrounds rather than vice versa.


In general, if I speak against a playstyle in my post, it's because I checked it out before, and I didn't find it as fun as my preferred one.

Either you have mischaracterized your previous experience, or it isn't at all what I'm talking about. I want a full, lush, consistent background that all the characters are intimately connected to. It's just being designed in the opposite direction.

In any event, you may be right. It's an experiment; it may not work. (And I don't expect it to take two years. That's to get people to start thinking about it before the current game is over.


I see what you mean, but I can't say I ever felt like that. I made a lot of characters I never got to play, but I don't feel particularily attached to any of them or feel bad that I didn't get to play them. I form attachment to my characters by playing them. If you told me to give you a character concept now and then we started playing a game after 2 years, I'd most likely want to play a different character.

Then this game isn't for you. There's nothing wrong with that.

Half the gaming group started playing with the original white box in the 1970s. It's not a typical group.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-11, 12:39 PM
Now, the impression I took away from the last few threads is that I should be having the players make their PCs first, ask them what type of game they want to play and then make a campaign around that.

Getting feedback is always useful. You can't always make everyone happy, but getting feedback(while an imperfect process usually), can help you learn a bit more about what they want.


However, I come across the following problems:

1: PCs don't like to make a backstory. Either they aren't creative enough, they just don't have motivation, or they are the type of player who actively hates that stupid fluff stuff and wants to get to the killing.

This happens. It's not necessarily bad, even. Early in gaming history, backstory wasn't a thing, and often names didn't even exist in the lower levels. For these people, backstory is something you create during gameplay. This is not the only way to go about things, but it's perfectly valid.


2: They never agree. PCs created without restrictions will, both mechanically and socially, not mesh even slightly. If I have four PCs they will all be drastically different races, classes, power levels, back stories, motivations, and alignment. They would never work together, let alone fit together in a campaign. If I locked them in a room and told them to come up with a cohesive group I imagine they would just fight for a few hours and then quit the game.

Ugh. This depends dramatically on the group. I've seen groups spontaneously create a harmonious group. Often intentionally. Another option for the more simulation minded is used by one of my current groups. Fully open ended char creation...but also fully open gameplay. In short, if you meet the party by trying to steal from them, you will be responded to exactly like an NPC, and three rounds later, they will be looting the smoking hole where your body used to stand.

If they want to create a char that absolutely can never get along with the party...let them. But let the party solve that problem in whatever way is actually appropriate, instead of forcing them together.


3: If I give the PCs buy in to create the story how can I get them to agree? Totally different players have totally different goals. One guy wants to be a paladin defending the realm from evil, the other one wants to play a sociopathic necromancer who wants to kill everyone he sees and create an unstoppable army of undead. One guy wants to work for the local crime boss, the other wants to be an emissary of the high heavens fighting in the blood war.
Furthermore, the players don't know the campaign world as well as I do, especially if I am running a home-brew world or system. Also, if they already have an idea of how the campaign will go in the long run won't that ruin the surprise and investment when it happens?

Surprise is overrated. Getting a good moment of surprise that is actually enjoyed by all the players takes a great deal of work, and even then, is often sketchy. Using a prefabbed campaign world is one path out of this dilemma, and having the players coordinate on a campaign world is another one. They like different things? Well, GOOD! let them build different parts, and ponder the interaction of those bits.


4: The last problem is personal. If I don't have inspiration for the game, how do I come up with all the ideas I need? Inspiration and motivation are hard to come by, and the DM needs to put a lot more time, effort, and creativity into creating the campaign than a PC does. If I put the ball in the PCs hands how do I do all this when they hand it back to me?

Steal. Steal from fiction, steal from television, steal from poetry, steal from legend, steal from premade campaigns.

Inspiration is in short supply. When it's not around, use stuff that other people have already created. DMing is hard work, don't be afraid to make use of all the hard work that other people have put into it and related fields before you. That lets you focus on the bits you really like.

kyoryu
2012-07-11, 04:25 PM
So, looking to put all of my bad gaming behind me and start out for greener pastures in the future, and I am trying to figure out ways to get my PCs on board and invested in the story.

I think I may have been doing it backwards all these years.

In the past I always had a vague outline for the overarching theme of the game first. For example something like "government operatives under cover in enemy territory", "Cowboys exploring an untamed wilderness," or "Knights and their advisors waging war against an evil necromancers army".

Here's an idea. Why don't you come up with a few broad ideas, and then ask your players which of those games they want to play? IOW, allow everyone to decide what they want the game to be about.

Then, making characters that fit in should go a lot easier, as they've already agreed on what they're going to be doing.

Talakeal
2012-07-11, 04:51 PM
Here's an idea. Why don't you come up with a few broad ideas, and then ask your players which of those games they want to play? IOW, allow everyone to decide what they want the game to be about.

Then, making characters that fit in should go a lot easier, as they've already agreed on what they're going to be doing.

Well, for my current campaign I did that. Did not work.

Tengu_temp
2012-07-12, 04:01 PM
Of course, the description "designed in a vacuum" leaves out 99% of what I'm talking about.

Ah, but I'm not talking about your game in that part of my post. I'm talking about a typical game of "players create characters, then the DM creates the campaign". I find those games much less interesting than ones where the campaign idea comes first.


Well, for my current campaign I did that. Did not work.

The approach is not the problem, the fact that you're playing with immature ***** is the problem. I suggest switching to a group that cares about roleplaying and is willing to cooperate and compromise.

Talakeal
2012-07-12, 05:15 PM
The approach is not the problem, the fact that you're playing with immature ***** is the problem. I suggest switching to a group that cares about roleplaying and is willing to cooperate and compromise.

Most players I have fail to really invest in my games. Some simply stop showing up after a few sessions, others stay around for years but never bother getting invested in the plot, getting in character, or bothering to learn the background of the campaign world.

Not all players, but most. And I have been told repeatedly that this is at least partially my fault, as a decent DM would hook most players, and a good DM would hook almost all players.

So I am trying to think of ways I can improve my DMing to hook more players in the future with the specific goal of getting them to care more about the campaign and story.

Knaight
2012-07-12, 09:25 PM
Not all players, but most. And I have been told repeatedly that this is at least partially my fault, as a decent DM would hook most players, and a good DM would hook almost all players.

Unless you've been forming completely new groups repeatedly, it could well be the fault of anyone else who stays with the groups. Given the descriptions of these people, I'm inclined to assume the latter.

The Glyphstone
2012-07-12, 09:32 PM
Unless you've been forming completely new groups repeatedly, it could well be the fault of anyone else who stays with the groups. Given the descriptions of these people, I'm inclined to assume the latter.

That's what a lot of people were saying, actually. When A,B,C and D are a poisonous group, and A+B leave while C+D stay, other poisonous people E+F replaced them, then D left to be replaced by G, but G couldn't stand the group and left to be replaced by another poisonous person H. When E+F left, I+J came in and were at home with the poisonous environment...etc. Particularly the obnoxious man-child who spawned the second-to-last Talakeal thread, who's apparently been part of the group for years and years.

The only way for Talakeal to really get an idea of GMing ability would be to start entirely fresh, cut all ties with the current group and recruit new players who have never met or played with the existing ones. Otherwise the contamination bias will keep seeping in.

Tyndmyr
2012-07-13, 09:28 AM
Most players I have fail to really invest in my games. Some simply stop showing up after a few sessions, others stay around for years but never bother getting invested in the plot, getting in character, or bothering to learn the background of the campaign world.

Not all players, but most. And I have been told repeatedly that this is at least partially my fault, as a decent DM would hook most players, and a good DM would hook almost all players.

So I am trying to think of ways I can improve my DMing to hook more players in the future with the specific goal of getting them to care more about the campaign and story.

Well, let's look at this from an abstract point of view...looking at blaming folks isn't generally a good first step.

First, even good DMs have some turnover. I tend to game with military folks a lot, so we actually have fairly notable turnover. People get deployed, people move. Things happen outside of people's control that result in turnover. This is not really a sign of anyone doing anything wrong.

Second, there's "this campaign sucks". There's many possible solutions for this, but frankly, I've seen campaigns last for years that were little more than one macguffin fetch quest after another. There tends to be a shortage of decent DMs, so honestly, even an average DM can generally have a functional group with a little effort.

Thirdly, there's an uninvested DM. This can kill a group...DM always bailing last minute, showing up unprepared...this is a fairly obvious problem, and easy to weed out. If you've got stuff prepared, and usually show up on time(or notify people if you cant), this isn't a huge thing.

Fourth, we have social conflicts. So and so broke up with their GF, and both play. These suck, but aren't necessarily even anyone's fault. Sometimes though, they definitely are. Do you have one player talking all the time, and dominating the game? Do you have a player who's socially awkward(yes, I know, it's D&D...but there are levels), and makes others feel uncomfortable?

Let's look over the past and see what the issue(s) are, and work from there...there may be campaign improvements...but there might also be other improvements too.

Grail
2012-07-13, 10:19 AM
1: PCs don't like to make a backstory. Either they aren't creative enough, they just don't have motivation, or they are the type of player who actively hates that stupid fluff stuff and wants to get to the killing.


What's wrong with this?
I've been RP'ing for 30 years, I consider myself to be an excellent RP'er who is not into optimization, will constantly play low tier build characters and can play multiple personalities when i run my characters.

And I don't Backstory unless the DM really wants it, and even then I only give a couple brief paragraphs (See Niassa in my .sig)

I consider Backstoies to be more of a hindrance when creating a well rounded character to play. They are restrictive, or worse, they are ignored after 5 minutes of gaming or actively contradicted. I know who my character is, what they are doing and why they are doing it, then I can expound on it during play and have it relevant to the game and the setting. If a GM wants me to tell them about my character, they'll get a couple sentences, that's pretty much it.

Backstories do not create a good character. Don't get stuck in that elitist rubbish that a backstory is required.

If you have a player that wants to backstory, then go for it, but don't force it on them or it will be strained, not fun and pointless.

Talakeal
2012-07-13, 04:28 PM
What's wrong with this?
I've been RP'ing for 30 years, I consider myself to be an excellent RP'er who is not into optimization, will constantly play low tier build characters and can play multiple personalities when i run my characters.

And I don't Backstory unless the DM really wants it, and even then I only give a couple brief paragraphs (See Niassa in my .sig)

I consider Backstoies to be more of a hindrance when creating a well rounded character to play. They are restrictive, or worse, they are ignored after 5 minutes of gaming or actively contradicted. I know who my character is, what they are doing and why they are doing it, then I can expound on it during play and have it relevant to the game and the setting. If a GM wants me to tell them about my character, they'll get a couple sentences, that's pretty much it.

Backstories do not create a good character. Don't get stuck in that elitist rubbish that a backstory is required.

If you have a player that wants to backstory, then go for it, but don't force it on them or it will be strained, not fun and pointless.

I have honestly never met a player like you before. Typically the same people who don't make backstories are the same people who hate to role-play at all and usually don't get invested in their characters. Personally I can't imagine not making a detailed backstory; if not up front than at least retroactively once I get to know the character. It isn't even a conscious decision, it just happens.

But it really isn't an issue in most campaign types. If I am running a high RP low combat game where the players are ordinary people living more or less ordinary lives it can be trouble however.

The problem is I am trying to get players more invested with the campaign and design the campaign around the PCs. If they don't give me anything to work with what can I do?

I am also playing in a system that has social merits / flaws, which players load up on considering them free points and then expect me to define what they mean, which forces me to "railroad" their character in a direction they apparently don't want to go.